There appears to be some concerns regarding the reputation of the journal (Sustainability) and it's publisher (MDPI) per my online readings. However, I want to ask my learned colleagues on this platform what they think? I'm planning of submitting a paper to an SI there.
I would seriously consider some of MDPI journals (no idea how many percent of its journals) should be categorized as predatory journals. Here is my experience. I have served as a reviewer for Sustainability, JRFM, Risks, etc totally over 15 times for past two years. Their editorial teams did NOT respect for reviewers' comments against publications. The editoral team would "unethically" accept/publish papers by requesting reviewers to accept poor papers even though the authors didn't follow the comments to do any revision. The most UNBELIEVABLE thing was that they ever even requested/forced reviewers to accept a paper that completely mismatched the journals' aims and scopes. This is quite unique but you might learn the reason later.
My friends then conducted an experiment in 2020 with submitting a "trash" to one of their journals to see what would happen. As expected, they were invited to revise and resubmit the paper in five or six days. However, my friends emailed them back that they decided NOT to revise and resubmit the paper (withdrawing). The edtorial office kept asking them why they decided not to revise the paper, of course, their emails were ignored by my friends. Few days later, my friends got a rude and ridiculous email as below and they told my friends that the journal DO NOT allow authors to withdraw the paper. My friends said "They like to do daytime robbery of charging about 1,000 USD APC".
---------------------------------Month 24, 2020
Dear Dr. XXXXXXX, May I kindly ask if you have received our emails (quoted below)? If we find that this paper was dual-submitted to another journal, we will definitely inform the editors of that journal and request a paper retraction. Please note that this is not standard practice and you risk rejection or retraction. We believe that this will not be the case for your paper. Thanks for your understanding. If you need any help in further revising the paper, please just let us know. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind regards, William Mr. WXXXXXXX WXXXXXXX Assistant Editor
---------------------------------Month 3, 2020
Dear Dr. XXXXXXX, Thanks for your reply and we apologize for the bad feelings you have. As you can see that the editors and reviewers had spent much time on processing and reviewing your manuscript. And we believe that the reviewers' reports would greatly help you to improve the quality of your manuscript. We hope that you can modify and improve the quality of your manuscript based on the helpful suggestions from the reviewers, instead of withdrawing the manuscript as soon as you received the reports. This is disrespectful for not only our work but also the reviewer's suggestions. In order to prevent the fraudulent behavior of dual-submissions, we do not allow withdrawal during paper revision, I hope you can understand. I wish you good luck on your research works. Best regards, William Mr. WXXXXXXX WXXXXXXX Assistant Editor
---------------------------------
Now the story becomes very clear in terms of their editorial policies and processes. Depending on different MDPI journals, they may charge $1,000-$1,500 for article process charges and, of course, they would unscrupulously keep all papers in the review process till the papers are accepted. And, BINGO, they earn big money by accepting papers no matter how terrible quality the papers have. The most interesting thing is that they even mentioned they do not allow authors to withdraw the paper. Once you submitted papers to them, you would become the prey.
This is just my friends' experience. Be aware of this. Get rid of some of MDPI journals.
Peter, as I ve heard from some reviewers, they don't reject the paper although been rejected by the reviewers. They keep ask authors to address comments somehow till the editor accept it at the end of the day. No harm to try yourself. Best wishes, Ahmed
Sustainability and its editor (MDPI) are ethically correct!
Some years ago I published on this Journal. The review process is transparent and so fast! This does not mean that the reviewer process is easy! The reviewers provide precious suggestions in order to improve the manuscript.
Currently, I am a member of reviewer board for Sustainability and other MDPI Journals. The policy consists in to be fast to provide the feedback to the authors and editor. The reviewers activity is always checked by the Editor.
I suggest you to submit your paper! Best regards Assunta
Hello Mr. Peter, Sustainability is index by DOAJ (www.doaj.org). So, it must be a genuine journal not a predatory. You can check.
Pls, see here below
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100240100&tip=sid&clean=0
Is a genuine journal my brother. Check from scimago Scopus ranking@ peter
Dear Peter Adjei-Bamfo ,
Some facts about the publisher behind the journal: As of September 2019, MDPI publishes 208 academic journals, including 53 with an impact factor out of 63 covered by the Science Citation Index Expanded. Even more of their journals are Scopus indexed and depending on the scope quite a number of their journals are included in PubMed as well.
The issues in the past, to a large degree caused by the fact that they used to be a new and rapidly growing publisher, are described elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
Nowadays they are together with Frontiers and PLOS established publishers fully dedicated to open access publishing.
The journal Sustainability is currently having an impact factor of 2.592 and is indexed in Scopus as well as member of DOAJ. So a pretty safe choice.
Best regards.
Rob Keller, many thanks for the facts you shared. It's a pretty enlightenment!
I have a paper there, topic :
Towards Understanding the Initial Adoption of Online Retail Stores in a Low Internet Penetration Context: An Exploratory Work in Ghana
Article Towards Understanding the Initial Adoption of Online Retail ...
Hi Ali Raza. Thanks for your answer. I understand from the earlier answers given by our experienced colleagues that mere IF can not be used to justify the reputation of a journal. It appears other considerations count.
Sustainability was good back then. Some 3 years ago. Now they publish very low quality papers. Even those rejected by reviewers. More of a money making system.
There is a special issue coming up in MDPI: Sustainability that is right down my alley. I would love to submit an article, but also I am aware of criticism of this publisher. I am interested in multiple opinions and any more recent critical developments if anyone knows anything. Also, I agree with Peter that IF is not everything.
There is this, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers , alas it is the same publisher, albeit a different journal.
There is also this, http://widgren.blogspot.com/2019/02/is-mdpi-serious-publisher-or-predatory.html ...
I am working on reviews for MDPI. The reviews are thorough and I have seen quite a few rejections there. Furthermore, I found the reviews on my own paper helpful and detailed, and certainly not easy to fulfil. It is not predatory.
Some universities have some concerns about Sustainability as a journal. Other MDPI journals are okay though. It seems Sustainability has too many sections and drifting from its main scope. Also, there is a notion that papers get easily accepted and this reflects in some of the published work there. Neither MDPI nor sustainability is a predatory journal.
I would seriously consider some of MDPI journals (no idea how many percent of its journals) should be categorized as predatory journals. Here is my experience. I have served as a reviewer for Sustainability, JRFM, Risks, etc totally over 15 times for past two years. Their editorial teams did NOT respect for reviewers' comments against publications. The editoral team would "unethically" accept/publish papers by requesting reviewers to accept poor papers even though the authors didn't follow the comments to do any revision. The most UNBELIEVABLE thing was that they ever even requested/forced reviewers to accept a paper that completely mismatched the journals' aims and scopes. This is quite unique but you might learn the reason later.
My friends then conducted an experiment in 2020 with submitting a "trash" to one of their journals to see what would happen. As expected, they were invited to revise and resubmit the paper in five or six days. However, my friends emailed them back that they decided NOT to revise and resubmit the paper (withdrawing). The edtorial office kept asking them why they decided not to revise the paper, of course, their emails were ignored by my friends. Few days later, my friends got a rude and ridiculous email as below and they told my friends that the journal DO NOT allow authors to withdraw the paper. My friends said "They like to do daytime robbery of charging about 1,000 USD APC".
---------------------------------Month 24, 2020
Dear Dr. XXXXXXX, May I kindly ask if you have received our emails (quoted below)? If we find that this paper was dual-submitted to another journal, we will definitely inform the editors of that journal and request a paper retraction. Please note that this is not standard practice and you risk rejection or retraction. We believe that this will not be the case for your paper. Thanks for your understanding. If you need any help in further revising the paper, please just let us know. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind regards, William Mr. WXXXXXXX WXXXXXXX Assistant Editor
---------------------------------Month 3, 2020
Dear Dr. XXXXXXX, Thanks for your reply and we apologize for the bad feelings you have. As you can see that the editors and reviewers had spent much time on processing and reviewing your manuscript. And we believe that the reviewers' reports would greatly help you to improve the quality of your manuscript. We hope that you can modify and improve the quality of your manuscript based on the helpful suggestions from the reviewers, instead of withdrawing the manuscript as soon as you received the reports. This is disrespectful for not only our work but also the reviewer's suggestions. In order to prevent the fraudulent behavior of dual-submissions, we do not allow withdrawal during paper revision, I hope you can understand. I wish you good luck on your research works. Best regards, William Mr. WXXXXXXX WXXXXXXX Assistant Editor
---------------------------------
Now the story becomes very clear in terms of their editorial policies and processes. Depending on different MDPI journals, they may charge $1,000-$1,500 for article process charges and, of course, they would unscrupulously keep all papers in the review process till the papers are accepted. And, BINGO, they earn big money by accepting papers no matter how terrible quality the papers have. The most interesting thing is that they even mentioned they do not allow authors to withdraw the paper. Once you submitted papers to them, you would become the prey.
This is just my friends' experience. Be aware of this. Get rid of some of MDPI journals.
John Nowlin. I understand you. Just that there seem to be this negative perception about the review process of the journal. And this is quite unfortunate. For example, read the response by Chun-Da Chen.
I find that they accept anything with just one review round. I have reviewed for Sustainability and have been surprised that I have never gotten a paper back for a second review and oftentimes the authors have not addressed my concerns. I also don't like that it is single-blind review.
Follow This Link Please:
https://widgren.blogspot.com/2019/02/is-mdpi-serious-publisher-or-predatory.html
Actually, I had a very good experience with MDPI being a guest editor for a special issue of Computers. The office was really supporting the search for reviews and the review process. At least for the Computers journal it looks really professional. Papers are seriously reviewed in several review rounds. Also other reviews I did for MDPI journals (Sensors, Computers) were handled seriously and the papers were either revised before publication or rejected.
The reason for the publication fee is that the journals are open access journals. Hence, in line with other publishers such as Springer or Elsevier, MDPI raises a publication fee to cover costs (and of course to earn some money) instead of having a subscription model as "regular" journals.
Unfortunately, I do not have much experience with Sustainability besides being asked to be a reviewer for a paper which really fits my research interests.
I have had good experiences with MDPI. Got a few publications and also rejections. The review process is standard and serious. The process is indeed faster than most journals.
I think it depends on the specific journal and especially the editors. In my experiences, the editors of some journals (e.g. Applied Sciences, Economies, Information, etc.) did respect my suggestions of rejection, rejecting the papers that I deemed unsuitable for publication, whereas some others clearly ignored my suggestions (-- in two occasions, they went on and published papers that did not even fit the scope of their journal). I myself published in two MDPI journals and also got rejections from them. In the end, I think it really depends on (the reputation of) the (guest) editors.
Please join https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_deal_with_Potentially_Predatory_Open_Access_Journals_and_Publishers_the_case_of_MDPIs_Sustainability_journal
for our similar discussion about Sustainability ... apologize for overlaps.
Totally agree.
Research means quality.
This is a business, not science.
Please let me also use this forum to correct some myths about editorial decisions at MDPI.
Some claim that major editorial decisions at MDPI are taken by non-academic in-house editors (managing editors) and not by academic editors. That’s wrong. Major decisions, in particular the final decision about a paper, are always taken by an academic editor!. No exception.
Some claim that by accepting a paper the decision maker will benefit because the publisher MDPI earns the APC. That’s wrong! The academic editor in no way has a benefit (or a harm) from accepting or rejecting a manuscript (or makes any other decision on a manuscript). There is no link between the academic editors decision and the APC! Academic editors are completely independent in their decisions.
I think that these misunderstandings might be due to the fact that the communications between reviewers and academic editors are always mediated by the in-house managing editor. The academic editor thus can focus on her/his major task, decision making. This might be unusual and therefore potentially creates misunderstandings (in particular if someone is trapped in certain mental models). But the editorial process is completely transparently explained for the different parties involved:
https://www.mdpi.com/authors
https://www.mdpi.com/editors
https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers
Some argue that MDPI is a predatory publisher. That’s wrong!
Some argue that MDPI puts business first and quality second. That’s equally wrong.
MDPI is not a “money making machine” like some claim. I advise anyone just to read the annual report and you know how they spend the money and how they support the scientific community. See: https://res.mdpi.com/data/2019_web.pdf
MDPI is in no way a predatory publisher. Decisions on manuscripts are always taken after substantive peer-review (reports and responses are often published along with the paper these days) and by an academic editor which is completely independent in her/his decision. MDPI support the scientific community in many innovative ways. See SciLit (https://www.scilit.net/), preprints (https://www.preprints.org/) SciProfile (https://sciprofiles.com/), SciForum (https://sciforum.net/) and more. If you want to know more just read the annual report.
MDPI is one of the most innovative publishers these days and they try to serve the academic community to its best!
Pia A Albinsson
I can understand your concern. Let me try to explain how it works and what is important to know because it might be unusual and therefore raise concers for you and others.
(1) If your recommendation is "minor revision" you won't get the paper back for another review. It's the academic editor who decides whether or not the revisions or responses made are satisfactory. I think that's perfectly fine if the revisions are really minor.
(2) Only if you recommend "major revisions" the paper will be returned to you. So if you have bigger issues or concerns and want to get the paper back for another round (if it is not rejected) you should recommend "major revisions".
(3) Sometimes the paper will also be returned for a second round if you have recommended "reject". It depends on the academic editor’s decision on the paper (based on the other reviewers' recommendation and the authors responses).
(4) Usually there are only two rounds of revisions, sometimes three, but then a final decision will be made in any case.
How can I know? First, I it know from my personal experience as an author, reviewer, guest editor and editor of Sustainability and other MDPI journals. But what’s more important is that everybody can read it in the guidelines for reviewers: https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers
Chun-Da Chen
I can understand your concerns. I encourage you to publish your reviews on Puplons. Sustainability and all MDPI journals allow you to publish your reviews on Publons: see https://publons.com/journal/27615/sustainability/
Just do it, let us know about the papers you rejected and we can make up our own opinion. Not many other publishers allow you to do that.
Whether a paper fit’s a journal or not is not the final decision of the reviewer. It’s the academic editors decision; they need to develop the profile of the journal (which is always evolving). So please respect their decision.
And the case you describe has nothing to worry about. Yes, from time to time the working of the system needs to be challenged, I agree. But a submission to a journal is not a joke or game. With the submission you start a workflow which consumes resources of editors and reviewers. I think it’s also highly unethical to simply withdraw the paper after receiving the reviews without any reason! Luckily, this very seldom happens. I experienced quite some withdrawals (without any problems) because the authors were not able to revise the paper in reasonable time. Usually the authors then revise and resubmit their paper.
Please let my I invite you contribute an answer to a question I just posted about a practice used by major Elsevier Journals. Thank you very much for your attention!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Time-loops_Do_major_Elsevier_Journals_manipulate_Impact_Factors_at_large_scale
Take a look at Sustainability (MDPI).
For 2019
1) we have two issue each month, for a total of 24 issues/year;
2) in the first issue, there are 296 (2-9-6) articles, for the second 259, in the third issue 385, in the fourth 1,216 for the first two months.
3) if we imagine that 600 is the average number of articles published, we have an approx 7,200 (7,200!!) articles/year. 3) To the incredible number of approx. 7,200, we need to add articles published with Special Issues (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues?section_id=0&search=&sort=deadline&view=open&page_count=100), a very huge number.
I don't know if MDPI is a predatory publisher. But I wonder how a scientific journal can publish such a great number of articles.
Sorry for the previous post, incomplete.
Take a look at Sustainability (MDPI). For 2019:
1) we have two issue each month, for a total of 24 issues/year;
2) in the first issue, there are 296 (2-9-6) articles, for the second 259, in the third issue 385, in the fourth 276; total number: 1,216 for the first two months.
3) if we imagine that 600 is the average number of articles published each month, we have an approx 7,200 (7,200!!) articles/year.
4) To the incredible number of approx. 7,200/year, we need to add articles published with Special Issues (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues?section_id=0&search=&sort=deadline&view=open&page_count=100), a very huge number.
Well, I don't know if MDPI is a predatory publisher. But I wonder how a scientific journal can publish such a great number of articles.
MDPI was on Beall's predatory list at one time, and then it won an appeal to be removed. https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/spotlight/predatory-publishing-dark-side-open-access-movement/
That at least creates the appearance that there was something troubling about their practices. As an early career academic, I see the value in maintaining such a list. . . I see the profit motive and the use of predatory journals by bad actors to sell pseudoscience as damaging to anyone who has references to these journals on their C.V.s. What is an aspiring researcher to do? That is the problem, what is the answer? I have really enjoyed the debate above, please if someone has a good response, post it. . .
Dear Paolo Parra Saiani ,
please have a look here and you will see that there are many large-scale journals these days: https://www.scilit.net/statistic-journal
Reputable.
Please see https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/2041
MDPI was on Beall's predatory list at one time, and then it won an appeal to be removed. https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/spotlight/predatory-publishing-dark-side-open-access-movement/
And...
Take a look at Sustainability (MDPI).
For 2019
1) we have two issue each month, for a total of 24 issues/year;
2) in the first issue, there are 296 (2-9-6) articles, for the second 259, in the third issue 385, in the fourth 1,216 for the first two months.
3) if we imagine that 600 is the average number of articles published, we have an approx 7,200 (7,200!!) articles/year. 3) To the incredible number of approx. 7,200, we need to add articles published with Special Issues (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues?section_id=0&search=&sort=deadline&view=open&page_count=100), a very huge number.
I don't know if MDPI is a predatory publisher. But I wonder how a scientific journal can publish such a great number of articles.
it is necessary to read the time schedule for review processes.
After the positive opinion of editor-in-chief the manuscripts are assigned to two reviewers which have to return their comments and decision by 15 days.
If the authors are invited to review the manuscript, they have to make the changes by 15/20 days.
This can explain the high number of articles published
MDPI provide a bonus for the review work. The review decision (positive or not) does not impact on the bonus.
This bonus can be use to pay future publications because e.g. Sustainability is Open access.
I invite to check the editors for each MDPI Journal. For instance, editors of prestigious Journals are also editors of MDPI Journals. Indeed, you will find editors of International Journals on Tourism and Sustainability issues as editors of some MDPI journals. This should ensure the fairness of processes and to create trust in the academic community.
As a reviewer of some papers for Sustainability, my experience has been similar to that from Mr. Chun-Da Chen. Papers rejected and the editorial team sending again the paper (you rejected before) and with almost no changes in it, telling if you can review it again. As a result, very poor papers published even without respecting the reviewers' opinion. So, I decided not to publish in this kind of journals ever, because I think it could damage our own work in science.
Dear Melania Salazar-Ordoñez ,
may I also recommend you to publish your reviews on Publons and let us know which papers your rejected and for what reason. This would serve the scientific community. Sustainability and other MDPI journals allow you to do so, unlike many other publishers.
See https://publons.com/journal/27615/sustainability/
See here how the published reviews look like:
https://publons.com/publon/?journal=27615&prepub_reviews=1&postpub_reviews=-1&order_by=date
Highly transparant. So please don't hesitate to use the options you have and let us know, which papers you rated as "very poor papers".
Its not just MDPI, good/bad anywhere... MDPIs even offer open reviews, try that.
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/09/08/transparently-ridiculous-elsevier-says-journal-shares-critics-concerns-about-bizarre-genetics-paper/
Can mention 100 articles from Elsevier, non-sense, out of scope and review time less than 2 weeks
Experiences, opinions can be heterogeneous, we have to follow standard matrices (WoS, Scopus).
I often receive review invitations from MDPI journals. In their wide majority, the articles that I receive are of low quality, and some of them end up being published a few weeks later despite negative reviews. My personal opinion is that these journals typically promise rushed reviews in a few days and a publication opportunity in exchange for a hefty publication fee.
Check out this discussion https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences#view=5f7daab66d0f7a20387710e1%3E
I know groups of "academics" that join together, create half a dozen special issues in different MDPI journals, but especially Sustainability, then they share each other’s articles in authentic "trains of authors" accepting each other MSs and there they go free and happy....The tax payer money pays out...
Thibaut Vidal , just a question. Have you ever reviewed for MDPI journals? I can't find any proof of that on Publons.
Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa, please be so kind and provide some evidence for your claim. Thanks.
Dear Volker Beckmann, is a profile on Publons mandatory to emit an opinion on ResearchGate? Moreover, as seen in your publication and editorial profile, you may not be free of conflict of interest on this subject:
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Institutions_and_Policies
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4745
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4161
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2013
Thibaut Vidal , I just wonder about the credibility of your statement. Your statement is not just an opinion it's a claim. If you are invited for a review you receive an abstract, never the full paper. So, if you have never reviewed for MDPI journals how can you write: "In their wide majority, the articles that I receive are of low quality, and some of them end up being published a few weeks later despite negative reviews." How can you assess the quality only from the abstracts? How do you know about "negative reviews"? That's the reason I'm asking.
Why should I have a conflict of interest? I have been working with MDPI since 2013, yes. That's no secret. I'm reviewing, editing for them and publishing with them for many years. Like many other well respected authors, reviewers and editors. I have gained a lot of experiences and with these I'm contributing to this discussions. What is wrong with that?
Thibaut Vidal , it would be funny if it weren't so sad to read that someone publishing with, and reviewing and editing for MDPI journals "may not be free of a conflict of interest" (and therefore....).
This forum is not about a joke. It's about a very serious question:
Is the journal "Sustainability", and its publisher, MDPI predatory or reputable?
This question was asked and often answered without any definition or serious reflection about what is "predatory" or “reputable”. Should we exchange opinions and personal experiences without providing evidence and facts? Without concepts and definitions? Are we scientists? A serious reflection on the issue of predatory publishing (including its definition) can be found for instance in the recent publication of Callaghan and Nicholson:
Callaghan, C. W., & Nicholson, D. R. (2019). Predatory publishing and predatory journals: a critical review and proposed research agenda for higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1695762
If you read this publication, the answer is clear: In no dimension MDPI journals can be classified as predatory. Further, my assessment is clear: MDPI is a reputable publisher. That assessment is based on seven years of continuous experiences and evidence visible and verifiable on credible sources like the editorial boards of MDPI journals, the quality of publications and (open) reviews, on Publons (https://publons.com/journal/?order_by=num_reviews_last_one_year), WoS, and more.
Sure, perhaps the notion of bias instead of conflict of interest is best applicable here. I see that you have written over fifty posts in different discussion threads over MDPI performance and that discussions on this topic are becoming very polarized.
One thing is sure, what makes the value of an academic journal currently is its reputation, and there exists valid doubts on the publishing and referring practices of MDPI journals (see, for example, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers). Given this, publications in MDPI can become a disadvantage rather than an asset in a CV, for example when applying for grants or academic positions. Therefore, in my humble opinion, I do not believe that it is currently in the authors' best interest to recommend submission to this journal.
Volker Beckmann I was inclusively and "Informally" invited to a "instantaneous" acceptance in Q2 journals, by the leader of the iniative! You can do the Triangulation between the journals Sustainability, Plants, Environments, Forests, Climate and search for the Trident between University of Évora (Portugal), University of Jaén (Spain), University of Algarve (Portugal) and University of Regio Callabria (Italy)! Then look at the Special Issues Editors, look at their common past and take your conclusions! Cheers
Thibaut Vidal , Thanks for your kind response and clarification. I would call it an informed perspective, you may call it bias, but that’s okay. Yes, the case you mention is often referred to. Just for the complete information see here the publisher's response: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1389
Sure, sometimes there are conflicts between editors and publishers. But this is not unique to MDPI. See:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/mass-resignations-wiley-journal-over-academic-independence
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/14/elsevier-journal-editors-resign-start-rival-open-access-journal
https://scholarlyoa.com/an-editorial-board-mass-resignation-from-an-open-access-journal/
As far as my person is concerned, I’m a member of the Editorial Board of Resources (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/resources/editors ) and I’m very happy with that.
Based on my experiences, I don’t hesitate to recommend scholars to submit to and publish their work also in MDPI journals. I would not downgrade anyone who has published in these (or other) journals, I would always look to the publication itself. I would not recommend to publish only in MDPI journals, scholars should always look out for the best available option and diversify. That's my recommendation.
Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa , Thanks a lot. That sounds serious, indeed. If you have evidence of scientific misconduct by the guest editors, please inform the publisher about that. Please also inform the Editors-in-chief of the respective journals. Thanks!
Just one thing which might be important to know in order to avoid misunderstandings: Guest editors at MDPI journals are never allowed to make decisions on manuscripts of which they are the author or co-author. Also they are not allowed to make decisions on manuscripts authored by other members of the same institution.
Volker Beckmann No they don't but they invite their friends as reviewers and give positive coments and reviews! I don't have time to waste with the mediocrity of Southern Europe Academia! I encourage you to do your own research! Target the Special issues and ask informations on the reports! I know these processes superficially once I always wanted to be detached from them! But I know very well how those Research units work and know precarious but good researchers that are obliged to participate! By looking at the novel of coments in this post it seems to comprove what I witnessed. I know there is good science in MDPI also, and I inclusively participate in publications when I see good and ethical behaviour, but I believe it is a bulk of everything! Good situations and these really bad situations that seems to multiply in Sustainability! Its a pitty! Because it harms Science and Academia! Best wishes
Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa , okay, I see, so you won’t take action. In any case, the kind of problem you mention can be found everywhere, it's nothing specific to guest-editors of MDPI journals. According to my experiences the MDPI-in-house editors often don't follow the recommendation for reviewers from guest-editors and authors. Actually, guest-editors have no final control over the invitation of reviewers. This is a mechanism to control the type of misbehavior you mention. I like it. Others have criticized this reliance on in-house-editors. I think it also has great advantages.
Volker Beckmann Even If the problem is not in the review problem, which I doubt it, then it is in the full aceptance of works on the paradigm "you pay...you publish" because that is what is reflected here in all coments of people with Sustainability and other Journals and it is equally demaging.
Dear Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa ,
I sense that you express a ‘gut feeling’ that open access publishing is the problem. You share this feeling/opinion with someone like Jeffrey Beall who initiated his famous (and notorious at the same time) Beall’s list. He focussed exclusively on open access journals (and publishers) with the prejudice that there must be ‘a lot going on’ with open access publishing and with the apparent assumption that subscription-based publishing is flawless and ‘close to perfection’ (suspect opinion for a librarian...). This latter assumption is obviously not the case (just have a look at the site Retraction Watch and you see that ALL publishers have issues: https://retractionwatch.com/ ).
Do realize that there are well-established open access (and hybrid) journals that use the ‘business model’ where authors have to pay, see for example:
-Nature Communnications (IF 12,121) https://www.nature.com/ncomms/
-Cell Reports (IF 8.109) https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/home
-International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IF 4.556) https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms
-Frontiers in Microbiology (IF 4.235) https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology#
-Scientific Reports (IF 3.998) https://www.nature.com/srep/
-PLoS One (IF 2.740) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
So, I think it is too black and white to assume that open access is (most of the times) not okay while subscription-based publishing is.
Best regards.
Dear Rob Keller ! I Didn t talk about open acess versus subscription-based, just a grey area where unethics may floorish! Cheers
Sad ... definitely the perils of ‘publish or perish’ rules academics have to meet in their higher educational institutions.
I think the most critical question is which journal is better. The quality of reputation is a relative concept. We cannot allow journals with relatively poor reputations to be rated higher than journals with better reputations, or vice versa. This is the key.
I think this is a complex issue as the exchange between Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa Volker Beckmann and Thibaut Vidal demonstrates. I believe it is driven in the first instance by government and university management seeking to 'manage' the academic workforce and relying on metrics to do so. Management operates by standardising, and as such it is the opposite of professionalism which operates by personalising. The academy is the ultimate profession: the professors are to profess their disciplinary knowledge in a way suited to their audiences--learned colleagues reading their work or junior scholars, the students. The best academic research is a very personal, intensive project that is deformed by standardisation.
With the development of mass education and government funding, the government decided that productivity must be measured and the logic of 'value for money' was introduced. The easiest, apparently neutral, metrics available for such management are raw numbers and easiest counting is counting the number of publications. (How does one count student satisfaction in any credible way?) As raw publication numbers are easy to game, the next method is to look at journal reputations and rankings. This task is much more difficult. In my field, law, a nationally based discipline there are only 170 journals and realistically, not more than 40 offering quality peer review. Globally, there are approximately 16,000 law journals. How will managers ever sort them out?
Traditionally, members of the academy knew their journals, read the articles and made their judgements about what to publish and where accordingly. Now that managers who do not know the journals believe academics need to be managed and that management by metrics is the best model, it has become a numbers game all around. Academics are pressured by management to publish in highly cited journals as often as (in)humanly possible. The result is that academics look to publish as quickly as possible in the most highly ranked journal possible and the rest be damned.
Management has no time for working through ideas and papers carefully. It has no interest in the value of the contribution to the discipline or the value of the discovery (unless is can be commercialised). The mantra is "deliver the numbers and we will keep you employed."
The publishers are not ill-informed or ill-intentioned. The traditional and predatory publishers have their own agendas--knowledge dissemination and profit generation respectively. While university presses, as traditional academic publishers, were not for profit enterprises, universities moved out of the publishing business and for profit publishers stepped in. This profit motive meant that publishers had to meet market demand. The academic demand was for quick turn-arounds in highly cited journals. Sustainability and other journals have developed the formula for that service.
Traditional journal publishing has failed the academy deeply in this regard. How can waiting 1+ years for work to be published be considered a good thing? Placing knowledge, which is supposed to be a free public good behind expensive subscription paywalls is appalling. These new model journals, however, not only solve the time and paywall problems. As with any solution, it comes with its own new set of problems. As I am coming to realise, they have played the game well--garnering large numbers of articles by making their mandates very broad in order to increase citations and by creating short review deadlines they are able to provide tight turn around times.
Does that make them predatory? I do not think so. I think the issue is whether the peer review process is sufficiently executed and used to guide editorial decisions. As Rob Keller has pointed out (and we have seen in significant numbers in top journals in the COVID pandemic), every journal suffers from poor editorial decisions from time to time. In the case of Sustainability, I have done several reviews. The process was clear, managed very efficiently and produced outcomes in a timely manner. As a result, I decided I would be open to be involved and to be acknowledged for my work by being an Associate Editor--something university managers believe is important.
As a reviewer, I have always been diligent to review carefully and made an effort to provide useful feedback. I believe that's the job. I have done so for any journal I have reviewed for and have rejected offers to review several papers because they were not in my areas of competence. My concern with Sustainability has come from papers that ought to be rejected, being too often 'revise and resubmit' and ultimately published--like Chun-Da Chen. While I prefer a supportive approach to peer review (I do not see how rudeness improves the quality of review or encourages improved scholarship and nor do I believe that anything I dislike or disagree with should not see the light of day), I do not believe publishing articles with little or questionable contribution serves anyone well.
Last of all, it is not right to blame academics who publish in these journals (and I pleased to see no one in the thread I read did so). They may publish there for a variety of reasons, from needing to get papers out, to the failure of traditional journals to operate efficiently, to the need to get into better ranked journals. I do not see the issues changing until government pressures ease and related decisions to allow academic professionals to be professionals emerge. Neither of these are foreseeable at present. That leaves it to us as professionals to support each other as Peter Adjei-Bamfo has done by asking and to continue to be vigilant for predatory journals while searching for better models of disseminating knowledge in a timely, trustworthy manner. We are still required to be the experts in our respective domains, evaluating the journal, its scope and quality and management has yet to come up with a different approach.
I have learned from this thread--thank you, and good luck Peter Adjei-Bamfo with your publication.
I think the real issue is not whether they are predatory but instead whether publishing a paper in these journals harms your reputation and the integrity of the science community as a whole; and if not, why not? Being open-access is not a problem. Many prestigious journals are open-access ones, too (e.g., Nature Communications), but nobody was asking if they are predatory. Why? Because everyone that has ever dealt with these prestigious journals believes that they are trustworthy, in terms of the quality of the published paper, the quality of reviewer reports, and how the editors respond to reviewers' comments, etc. The last item seems to be triggering a strand of debates over MDPI journals here: way too often, we reviewers see our suggestions of "rejection" are ignored by the Editor of some MDPI journals. I have no objection to the review process being constructive, but accepting many papers that the reviewers voted strongly against (which means there is something seriously wrong with the paper) is certainly not healthy for the journal and for the community as a whole. It creates a notion that anything you have written can be published, so you don't need to design your study carefully and you don't need to do extra experiments to strengthen your results. You just write and submit; then wait for revision and publication. What's worse, once the (not-very-sound) paper is published, many people (especially young scholars in developing countries where many institutions do not have access to traditional, non-OA journals) will cite it and follow its (not-very-sound) example to write their own papers. In the end, they may even believe their approach is actually sound... I certainly hope MDPI can be considered prestigious (so that scientists have more decent outlets for their research outputs), but merely debating over this would not help much. At the end of the day, people only see the names of the authors, the names of the editors, and those names of the journal, but not the names of the reviewers. It is, therefore, the responsibility of these three observable parties to help protect the reputation of the journal.
Thanks, Benedict Sheehy and Qihui Chen for the great summaries on these issues. Clearly, there is an ongoing transition in publishing models. For-profit publishing companies will always strive to increase their market. One way to achieve this is by being less selective, which is in line with the argument that "any scientifically sound" paper should deserve publication even if "novelty and contribution are limited". I am, however, skeptical about the real benefits of this for the scientific community: increasing the number of published papers contributes to bloating the publication landscape, in such a way that it is harder to stay up to date in a research field and identify innovative works in the sheer volume of publications. Moreover, in such a model, researchers are entirely responsible for their "own branding" (e.g., through social networks) a task which was previously connected in part to the publisher/journal reputation and for which institutions are inequally equipped (not all of us have large communication teams). At the end of the day, it is possible that unlimited access to publication ends up making science much less accessible overall and concentrates the spotlight on much fewer teams.
Dear Thibaut Vidal , the worst part of your answear is that that bloating and instantaneous publication effect protects and promotes mediocrity in Academia and Scientific world, leading to the prevailance of those o practice it. Than, these people generate more mediocre scientists like them that will continue the work, while killing prolific scientists in the Universities once they appear with good work! Its a disgrace in most Southern Europe Academia, as the examples I stated are inequivocal proofs of that.
Dear Qihui Chen ,
Thank you very much for sharing your experiences and opinions. You, like others, raise serious concerns over papers being accepted although some reviewers recommended rejection. You write “...way too often, we reviewers see our suggestions of "rejection" are ignored by the Editor of some MDPI journals.”
Let me reflect on the process. There are two ways in which a paper, which was rejected by a reviewer, may get accepted:
ad 1. I think that there is no doubt that the final decision about a manuscript is with the editors. They take the final responsibility, not the reviewers. They may disagree with some of the reviewers. They sometimes face very difficult decisions (e.g. two reviewers recommend accept, one reject). The rules at MDPI are clear and as follows:
“Reviewers make recommendations, and Editors-in-Chief are free to disagree with their views. If they do so, they should justify their decision, for the benefit of the authors.”
Source: https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process
I think that's fair.
If you as a reviewer face such a case and you can’t understand it, I recommend writing to the assistant editor (your contact person) and ask for the justification of the decision. I’m sure you will get an answer.
ad 2. According to COPE every publisher should have a clear policy on how to handle appeals:
https://publicationethics.org/appeals
MDPI journals, strictly following the COPE guidelines, are very clear on that. See for instance: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions
“Author Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Managing Editor of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Board member. The academic Editor being consulted will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.
In the case of a special issue, the Managing Editor of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to the Editor-in-Chief who will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be reversed.”
I think that's good ethical practice.
Again: If you as a reviewer don’t understand what is happening, I recommend writing to the assistant editor (your contact person) and ask for an explanation. I’m sure you will get an answer.
Authors' appeals are a sensitive but important issue.
Also other publishers are increasingly paying attention to authors' appeals. See:
https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review/peer-review-appeals-and-complaints/
https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/appeals-and-complaints
Some journals and publishers, although being a member of COPE, don’t provide any option to appeal.
Elsevier, for instance, generally claims to follow COPE : https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics
Under “Fair Play” it is stated that “The editor shall establish, along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions.”
However, often there is no “transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions” in place, e.g. by Journal of Cleaner Production:
“This journal operates a single blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of one independent expert reviewer to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final.”
https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30440?generatepdf=true
.
To be honest, I prefer the way MDPI implements the COPE rules and strictly follows ethical guidelines.
Yes, publishers, editors, authors and reviewers have a joint responsibility for the reputation of a journal and all should follow ethical guidelines (like the very useful COPE guidelines). BTW, Sustainability allows the reviewers to be named (in the published review reports, if they - and the authors - agree to do so) or to name themselves on Publons (see https://publons.com/journal/27615/sustainability/).
Dear Volker Beckmann,
Thank you for such an insightful explanation of the MDPI editorial process. I believe that unhappy Reviewers can now seek explanation from Assistant Editors about a contrary decision (to their recommendations) taken by an Editor in Chief.
I wanted to add emphasis to a few points raised.
First, Thibaut Vidal makes a good point stating that " increasing the number of published papers contributes to bloating the publication landscape, in such a way that it is harder to stay up to date in a research field and identify innovative works in the sheer volume of publications." This is an important point which has implications for research going forward.
Second, as Qihui Chen argues, it creates a negative, feedback loop. With no brake on the publication of what he generously calls, 'not very sound' publications, these publications become an acceptable standard. They create what Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa laments: more mediocre scientists (or scholars of any discipline).
Finally, while Volker Beckmann is correct: it is the editors who are the ultimate arbiters of what is published and not the reviewers, and that MDPI has some good processes in place for appeals and disclosure, at some point reviewers have limited time and cannot be responsible for policing articles they have reviewed.
As reviewers, we provide our time and advice. Beyond that, we expect editors to focus on the journal's reputation (rather than revenues) and authors to take advice on how to improve their work.
The problem is also realted with the special issues created by those mediocre scientists that with a train of friends and co-authors create several special issues then they exchange revisions as they suggest each other in the role of the 3 required reviwers, accepting each other works...and roll on...it passes...From since I have comented on this issue 3 more special issues appeared from the same group of academics that I denounced here! Alwyas exchange special issue editors in different journals (Envirnoments, Forests, Suistainability, Diversity and Plants)...
Just declined today invitation from Sustainability to be editor for a special issue. The topic of the special issue was nicely crafted to match my past research interests. But I really don't want to be involved in Sustainability journal's business anymore.
Better to try to publish in journals of recognized publishing editors: Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, ... etc.
Carlos Martins Vila-Viçosa is referring to 'citation cartels'. These cartels are well known and are systematic efforts to game the system and any decent journal will know about them and prevent them, to say nothing of the ethics of those engaging in the cartel.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/how-scholars-hack-the-world-of-academic-publishing-now/279119/
I believe a broader question and forum for this problematic should be raised...Please check the same issue now with Plants (MDPI):
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Plants_published_by_MDPI_a_serious_journal
Agreed with Miara Mohamed Djamel if timing is not an issue for your publication.
I recommend reading this thread as well, which deals with the same issue:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-to-deal-with-Potentially-Predatory-Open-Access-Journals-and-Publishers-the-case-of-MDPIs-Sustainability-journal
@Miara Mohamed Djamel There are young researchers (like myself) who cannot afford the fees of these renowned publishers, where do you suggest we publish?
Dear Enyojo Samson Okwute ,
It might be not fully clear to you but ‘renowned’ publishers like Springer do not automatically mean expensive. This thread discusses an example of the so-called open access publishing model. Meaning that not your institute (or the reader without a subscription or license) cover the costs of publishing but the authors who got their manuscript accepted will have to do this.
Most of the journals that publish according to the so-called subscription-based model are free of costs. Read the guidelines carefully since some charge for colour figures etc. But in principle it is for free. So, you have countless journals to choose from. Go to for example Springer site: https://link.springer.com/ choose for example ‘biochemistry’ and you see that there are 120 journals.
Hope this clarifies matters a bit.
Best regards.
Dear Rob Keller,
Thank you so much for your kind and prompt response. It has served as an eye-opener.
Warm regards.
https://predatoryjournals.com/ lists journals engaging in any of following criteria as potentially predatory:
According to some posts in this feed the journal Sustainability meets at least two of these criteria.
Dear Diana Šimić ,
Interesting but pretty loose ‘analysis’. I recommend those really interested to read one of the most thorough analysis of this publisher I've seen so far: https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/
Another critical but fair analysis is: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/
Best regards.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking